CBB Matchups
Every D1 game with tempo-free ratings, four factors and market lines, one place.
College basketball is being built for the 2026-27 season (tip-off Nov 3). What's here fills in as games are played.
Non-conferenceCrisler Center, Ann Arbor, MI
William & Mary
Efficiency #127
2025-26: 20-12 · 11-9 conf
@
Michigan
Efficiency #1
2025-26: 37-3 · 21-2 conf
Sun, Nov 15 · TBD
70.1
win 3%
Projected
91.5
win 97%
No line posted yet.
Model: MICH −21.4 · total 161.7 · ratings as of Sat, Oct 3
Preseason ratings start from 2025-26's final adjusted ratings, regressed toward the D1 average. The stats below are 2025-26's too; both update once 2026-27 games are played.
How the projection is built
each step, from an average D-I game to this oneProjected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: Michigan 70.7, William & Mary 71.8 → 74.2 possessions
+12.8
Michigan offense vs William & Mary defense
+8.9
William & Mary offense vs Michigan defense
−8.3
Projected total
161.7
Axis starts at 130 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Michigan offense vs William & Mary defense
+8.9
William & Mary offense vs Michigan defense
+8.3
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.3
Michigan by 21.4
21.4
William & Mary side ◂▸ Michigan side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 161.6 against a projected 161.7, and the margin steps add to +21.5 against +21.4. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Michigan.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 74.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, William & Mary is the faster team (73.6, #9 of 365) and Michigan the slower (71.4, #34). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
74.2
per team, 40 min
Projected total
161.7
model
Projected team totals
70.1 / 91.5
William & Mary / Michigan
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
71.8#6
William & Mary
70.7#22
Michigan
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageMichigan
Where Michigan scores: shooting
Michigan shoots an effective 58.3% (#8); William & Mary allows 51.9% (#205). Expect about 55.7%, 4.4 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +6.2 points per 100 possessions.
Pace
Track meet
Michigan averages 71.4 possessions per 40, William & Mary 73.6. Slower teams pull the pace toward themselves more than fast teams push it (0.80 vs 0.66 in five seasons of games), so expect about 74 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
DefenseMichigan
Michigan's shot-blocking
Michigan ranks #3 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 14.3% of William & Mary's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.
AdvantageWilliam & Mary
Where William & Mary struggles: the offensive glass
William & Mary rebounds 26.0% of its own misses (#324); Michigan lets opponents grab 28.2% of their own misses (#70). Expect about 26.2%, 4.2 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.6 points per 100 possessions.
ClashWilliam & Mary
Strength vs strength: eFG%
William & Mary (#58 in eFG%) against Michigan (#1 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 49.6%. Historically William & Mary's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.58 vs 0.51).
GlassMichigan
Michigan owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 33.9% is worth roughly +2.1 points per 100 possessions for Michigan's offense.
William & Mary has the ball
OffenseMichigan allowsvs D1 avg
54.3% #58
44.6% #1
-2.4 pt/100
16.5% #169
15.1% #272
+1.4 pt/100
26.0% #324
28.2% #70
-2.6 pt/100
44.0% #9
26.0% #14
-0.1 pt/100
74.9% #87
—
+0.2 pt/100
William & Mary net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.4 pts/100
Michigan has the ball
OffenseWilliam & Mary allowsvs D1 avg
58.3% #8
51.9% #205
+6.2 pt/100
16.3% #159
19.0% #48
-1.5 pt/100
34.7% #55
31.5% #229
+2.1 pt/100
38.0% #102
35.5% #195
+0.2 pt/100
74.8% #91
—
+0.2 pt/100
Michigan net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +7.3 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersWilliam & Maryoffense vsMichigandefense
Share of shots by zone
William & Mary shoots
43.8
4.6
8.6
43.0
Michigan allows
27.6
8.8
21.2
42.4
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 64.0%#37 | 54.5%#48 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 32.0%#332 | 40.9%#206 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 39.7%#120 | 31.4%#12 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.0%#233 | 30.4%#18 | 33.7% |
Michiganoffense vsWilliam & Marydefense
Share of shots by zone
Michigan shoots
42.8
7.8
8.5
40.9
William & Mary allows
38.6
4.2
11.3
45.8
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 67.4%#7 | 59.9%#222 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 40.3%#169 | 34.2%#48 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.8%#82 | 40.2%#249 | 38.0% |
| Three | 36.8%#33 | 33.1%#126 | 33.7% |
RimShort 2 (≤9 ft)Mid 2 (10 ft+)Three
Zones from play-by-play shot descriptions; garbage time removed. Bars show the share of field-goal attempts in each zone; where a slice is too thin for its number, the shares are listed under the bar. FG% ranks: #1 = best for that side (most accurate shooting, stingiest defense).
Shot volume
Extra scoring chances from rebounds, turnovers and the foul line · 2025-26 numbersWilliam & Mary
+2.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#83 of 365
Off reb %
26.0%
#324
Def reb %
68.5%
#229
Turnover %
16.5%
#169
Forced TO %
19.0%
#48
FT rate
44.0%
#9
FT allowed
35.5%
#195
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.4
Defensive rebounding−0.3
Ball security+0.2
Forcing turnovers+1.6
Foul shots drawn+2.3
Foul shots allowed−0.1
Michigan
+4.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#29 of 365
Off reb %
34.7%
#55
Def reb %
71.8%
#70
Turnover %
16.3%
#159
Forced TO %
15.1%
#272
FT rate
38.0%
#102
FT allowed
26.0%
#14
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.4
Defensive rebounding+0.8
Ball security+0.3
Forcing turnovers−1.1
Foul shots drawn+0.8
Foul shots allowed+2.4
Michigan has more extra scoring chances per game: +4.5 (#29 of 365) to William & Mary’s +2.3 (#83).
Grade = extra shots and foul-line trips per game compared with a D-I average team, built from six season rates. Cell shading is the national rank for each rate (greener = better for that team).
Rotation
William & Mary2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | Tunde Vahlberg Fasasi | F | Jr | 6'8" | 32-31 | 26.8 | 11.9 | 4.1 | 2.5 | 1.4 | 55.0% | 35.0% | 4.5 | 78.7% | 23.4% | |
| 2 | Chase Lowe | G | Sr | 6'5" | 32-32 | 23.4 | 9.2 | 5.8 | 3.8 | 1.7 | 58.0% | 11.1% | 0.3 | 72.8% | 21.0% | |
| 0 | Reese Miller | G | Jr | 6'4" | 30-0 | 24.5 | 12.1 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 52.9% | 32.8% | 4.3 | 73.4% | 27.1% | |
| 11 | Kyle Pulliam | G | Sr | 6'4" | 30-29 | 24.4 | 10.4 | 3.4 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 51.7% | 30.1% | 3.1 | 82.0% | 21.9% | |
| 23 | Jo'el Emanuel | F | Sr | 6'6" | 31-4 | 22.1 | 8.5 | 3.0 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 58.2% | 33.3% | 1.4 | 69.6% | 20.0% | |
| 15 | Ryan Jackson Jr. | G | So | 6'6" | 31-0 | 18.6 | 7.0 | 3.0 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 69.4% | 52.4% | 0.7 | 67.9% | 16.8% | |
| 1 | Cade Haskins | F | Sr | 6'6" | 32-31 | 16.9 | 6.3 | 2.4 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 51.8% | 34.4% | 4.1 | 76.5% | 21.3% | |
| 8 | Jhei-R Jones | G | Sr | 6'1" | 24-0 | 17.7 | 5.4 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 52.2% | 33.3% | 2.0 | 82.9% | 17.8% | |
| 43 | Finn Lally | F | Sr | 6'8" | 25-1 | 10.0 | 3.9 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 56.5% | 38.5% | 1.0 | 66.7% | 21.1% | |
| 7 | Kyle Frazier | G | Sr | 6'2" | 16-1 | 5.6 | 1.7 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 39.1% | 22.2% | 1.1 | 69.2% | 17.2% | |
| 24 | Kaleb Spencer | F | Fr | 6'8" | 6-0 | 5.7 | 3.0 | 3.7 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 56.7% | 25.0% | 0.7 | 33.3% | 30.8% | |
| 6 | Colin Ndaw | G | So | 6'3" | 5-0 | 5.6 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 33.3% | 0.0% | 0.6 | 66.7% | 25.9% | |
| 5 | Ethan Connery | G | Jr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 25 | Miles Hicks | G | Sr | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Michigan2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Elliot Cadeau | G | Jr | 6'1" | 40-40 | 27.3 | 10.5 | 2.7 | 5.8 | 2.4 | 50.9% | 37.6% | 4.3 | 70.9% | 24.8% | |
| 1 | Trey McKenney | G | Fr | 6'4" | 40-0 | 22.0 | 9.9 | 2.8 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 58.6% | 39.1% | 4.3 | 89.5% | 22.1% | |
| 42 | Will Tschetter | F | Sr | 6'8" | 40-1 | 13.7 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 50.9% | 34.5% | 2.1 | 90.9% | 13.9% | |
| 5 | Oscar Goodman | F | Fr | 6'7" | 16-0 | 5.2 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 41.7% | 0.0% | 0.4 | 40.0% | 19.3% | |
| 32 | Malick Kordel | C | Fr | 7'2" | 14-0 | 4.1 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 57.1% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 20.0% | 16.5% | |
| 10 | Winters Grady | G | Fr | 6'6" | 9-0 | 5.7 | 2.9 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 50.0% | 31.6% | 2.1 | 85.7% | 29.4% | |
| 12 | Charlie May | G | Sr | 6'5" | 8-0 | 2.4 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 75.0% | 66.7% | 0.4 | 50.0% | 21.7% | |
| 7 | Howard Eisley Jr. | G | So | 6'0" | 9-0 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 30.0% | 20.0% | 0.6 | 0.0% | 26.4% | |
| 13 | Harrison Hochberg | F | Jr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Ricky Liburd | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
William & Mary2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | Tunde Vahlberg Fasasi | F | Jr | 6'8" | 32-31 | 26.8 | 11.9 | 4.1 | 2.5 | 1.4 | 55.0% | 35.0% | 4.5 | 78.7% | 23.4% | |
| 2 | Chase Lowe | G | Sr | 6'5" | 32-32 | 23.4 | 9.2 | 5.8 | 3.8 | 1.7 | 58.0% | 11.1% | 0.3 | 72.8% | 21.0% | |
| 0 | Reese Miller | G | Jr | 6'4" | 30-0 | 24.5 | 12.1 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 52.9% | 32.8% | 4.3 | 73.4% | 27.1% | |
| 11 | Kyle Pulliam | G | Sr | 6'4" | 30-29 | 24.4 | 10.4 | 3.4 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 51.7% | 30.1% | 3.1 | 82.0% | 21.9% | |
| 23 | Jo'el Emanuel | F | Sr | 6'6" | 31-4 | 22.1 | 8.5 | 3.0 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 58.2% | 33.3% | 1.4 | 69.6% | 20.0% | |
| 15 | Ryan Jackson Jr. | G | So | 6'6" | 31-0 | 18.6 | 7.0 | 3.0 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 69.4% | 52.4% | 0.7 | 67.9% | 16.8% | |
| 1 | Cade Haskins | F | Sr | 6'6" | 32-31 | 16.9 | 6.3 | 2.4 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 51.8% | 34.4% | 4.1 | 76.5% | 21.3% | |
| 8 | Jhei-R Jones | G | Sr | 6'1" | 24-0 | 17.7 | 5.4 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 52.2% | 33.3% | 2.0 | 82.9% | 17.8% | |
| 43 | Finn Lally | F | Sr | 6'8" | 25-1 | 10.0 | 3.9 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 56.5% | 38.5% | 1.0 | 66.7% | 21.1% | |
| 7 | Kyle Frazier | G | Sr | 6'2" | 16-1 | 5.6 | 1.7 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 39.1% | 22.2% | 1.1 | 69.2% | 17.2% | |
| 24 | Kaleb Spencer | F | Fr | 6'8" | 6-0 | 5.7 | 3.0 | 3.7 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 56.7% | 25.0% | 0.7 | 33.3% | 30.8% | |
| 6 | Colin Ndaw | G | So | 6'3" | 5-0 | 5.6 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 33.3% | 0.0% | 0.6 | 66.7% | 25.9% | |
| 5 | Ethan Connery | G | Jr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 25 | Miles Hicks | G | Sr | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26William & Mary
Against the spread
Season
16-14
Home
6-5
Road
7-8
Last 10
3-7
avg cover −2.5
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 2 of 8 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
12-17-1
Home
5-6
Road
6-9
Last 10
3-6-1
avg vs total −0.3
Over in 2 of 8 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 8 | Hofstra | N | L 61–92 | +2.5 | L−28.5 | 153.0 | P153 | 92.8 | 140.0 | 65.7 |
| Mar 7 | Elon | N | W 72–62 | −5.5 | W+4.5 | 163.5 | U134 | 106.4 | 91.6 | 67.7 |
| Mar 3 | Hampton | H | W 94–85 | −11.5 | L−2.5 | 154.0 | O179 | 130.3 | 117.9 | 72.1 |
| Feb 28 | NC A&T | A | W 91–88 | −7.0 | L−4.0 | 163.5 | O179 | 121.0 | 117.0 | 75.2 |
| Feb 26 | Northeastern | H | W 84–77 | −11.0 | L−4.0 | 164.5 | U161 | 105.1 | 96.4 | 79.9 |
| Feb 19 | Campbell | A | L 83–84 | −2.5 | L−3.5 | 167.5 | U167 | 111.8 | 113.1 | 74.3 |
| Feb 14 | Elon | H | L 78–81 | −8.0 | L−11.0 | 165.5 | U159 | 109.6 | 113.8 | 71.2 |
| Feb 12 | Northeastern | A | W 94–67 | −5.5 | W+21.5 | 167.5 | U161 | 135.0 | 96.2 | 69.7 |
| Feb 7 | Hampton | A | L 74–77 | −5.5 | L−8.5 | 152.0 | U151 | 103.6 | 107.7 | 71.5 |
| Feb 5 | UNC Wilmington | A | W 85–78 | +4.5 | W+11.5 | 159.0 | O163 | 125.9 | 115.6 | 67.5 |
Michigan
Against the spread
Season
19-21
Home
8-7
Road
4-7
Last 10
4-6
avg cover +1.6
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 9 as a favoriteCovered 1 of 5 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
17-23
Home
6-9
Road
4-7
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +0.8
Under in the last gameOver in 5 of 9 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 5 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 6 | #2UConn | N | W 69–63 | −6.5 | L−0.5 | 146.0 | U132 | 105.4 | 96.3 | 65.4 |
| Apr 4 | #1Arizona | N | W 91–73 | +1.0 | W+19.0 | 157.5 | O164 | 116.6 | 93.6 | 78.0 |
| Mar 29 | #6Tennessee | N | W 95–62 | −8.0 | W+25.0 | 146.0 | O157 | 126.1 | 82.3 | 75.3 |
| Mar 27 | #4Alabama | N | W 90–77 | −9.5 | W+3.5 | 173.0 | U167 | 126.6 | 108.3 | 71.1 |
| Mar 21 | #9Saint Louis | N | W 95–72 | −12.0 | W+11.0 | 160.5 | O167 | 134.7 | 102.1 | 70.5 |
| Mar 19 | #16Howard | N | W 101–80 | −31.0 | L−10.0 | 151.5 | O181 | 141.7 | 112.2 | 71.3 |
| Mar 15 | #18Purdue | N | L 72–80 | −5.5 | L−13.5 | 149.5 | O152 | 114.9 | 127.7 | 62.7 |
| Mar 14 | #23Wisconsin | N | W 68–65 | −12.5 | L−9.5 | 161.5 | U133 | 100.7 | 96.2 | 67.5 |
| Mar 13 | Ohio State | N | W 71–67 | −12.5 | L−8.5 | 155.0 | U138 | 106.0 | 100.0 | 67.0 |
| Mar 8 | #8Michigan St | H | W 90–80 | −10.5 | L−0.5 | 152.0 | O170 | 126.5 | 112.5 | 71.1 |
Records vs the closing line describe the past; ten games is a small sample.
Tale of the tape
national rank toned left for away, right for homeWilliam & MaryMichigan
Efficiency
110.1
121.2
107.7
95.7
71.8
70.7
—
—
Shooting
54.3%
58.3%
57.9%
60.6%
33.0%
36.8%
74.9%
74.8%
44.0%
38.0%
Ball control & glass
16.5%
16.3%
19.0%
15.1%
26.0%
34.7%
31.5%
28.2%
9.9%
8.9%
9.8%
8.5%
Style
42.8%
41.4%
43.3%
44.6%
19.6%
13.9%
63.8%
61.0%
43.8%
37.4%
Roster
3.49
2.42
6'5.3"
6'3.9"
89.1%
34.2%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputWilliam & Mary
Returning minutes: 89.1%Returning production: 88.7%
Lost
- Kilian Brockhoff 21.7 mpg, 10.7 ppg · transferred to E Michigan
Added
- Miles Hicks no D1 minutes last season
- Ethan Connery no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 89% of last season's minutes; lost 1 of its top 5 (1 transferred). Teams returning at least 65% of last season's minutes have historically gained about 2.2 points of AdjEM (n=156 team-seasons, 2022-2026).
Michigan
Returning minutes: 34.2%Returning production: 26.1%
Lost
- Yaxel Lendeborg 30.3 mpg, 15.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Morez Johnson Jr. 25.1 mpg, 13.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Aday Mara 23.4 mpg, 12.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Roddy Gayle Jr. 20.5 mpg, 7.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Nimari Burnett 19.8 mpg, 8.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- L.J. Cason 13.1 mpg, 5.8 ppg · transferred to Miami
Added
- Ricky Liburd no D1 minutes last season
- Harrison Hochberg no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 34% of last season's minutes; lost 3 of its top 5. Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 team-seasons, 2022-2026).
Head-to-head
this season and lastNo meetings the last two seasons.
The CBB Matchups tab lays out the day's Division I slate: matchup, tip time, records and rank, and — once posted — Pinnacle's spread and total (the median across books when Pinnacle has no line). Three views switch the table between projected scores, pace and totals, and each team's offensive and defensive tendencies. Each game opens into opponent-adjusted possessions, efficiency and four-factor tendencies for both teams, plus recent form, rotation and head-to-head history. Every game also carries our projected score, spread and total, built bottom-up from those same numbers: expected possessions times each side's opponent-adjusted points per possession, plus home court.
What these numbers mean: line shopping.